For instructions on how to nominate an article, see below.
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Noms (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps & QueuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKsWP:DYKA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page, by a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.

Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
December 27 1
February 26 1
March 8 1
March 12 1
March 17 1
March 19 1
March 25 1
March 26 1
April 2 1
April 4 1
April 6 1
April 7 2 1
April 9 1
April 11 1 1
April 12 1
April 13 1
April 14 1
April 20 2 1
April 22 1
April 23 1
April 24 2 1
April 25 1
April 26 2 1
April 27 1
April 28 1 1
April 30 2
May 1 1
May 2 1
May 3 6 2
May 4 2
May 5 4 2
May 7 1
May 8 3 2
May 9 1
May 10 1 1
May 11 3 2
May 12 4 2
May 13 6 5
May 14 3 3
May 15 5 3
May 16 4 2
May 17 2
May 18 6 1
May 19 5 3
May 20 11 4
May 21 11 5
May 22 10 4
May 23 6 3
May 24 7 4
May 25 5 4
May 26 8 5
May 27 10 7
May 28 8 5
May 29 10 7
May 30 7 6
May 31 11 5
June 1 9 8
June 2 11 6
June 3 9 3
June 4 8 4
June 5 10 7
June 6 9 4
June 7 11 7
June 8 18 6
June 9 16 5
June 10 8 3
June 11 7 4
June 12 12 6
June 13 6 1
June 14 3
June 15 8 2
June 16 6 1
June 17 8 1
June 18 6 2
June 19 3 1
Total 361 164
Last updated 20:08, 19 June 2019 UTC
Current time is 20:11, 19 June 2019 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began or it became a good article (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose); self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination (consider watchlisting your nomination page).

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing:
Official DYK criteria: DYK rules and supplementary guidelines
Unofficial guide: Learning DYK

To nominate an article

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.
For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.
Create the nomination subpage.

Enter the article title in the box below and click the button. (To nominate multiple articles together, enter any or all of the article titles.) You will then be taken to a preloaded nomination page.

Write the nomination.

On the nomination page, fill in the relevant information. See Template:NewDYKnomination and {{NewDYKnomination/guide}} for further information.

  • Not every line of the template needs to be filled in. For instance, if you are not nominating an image to appear with your hook, there is no need to fill in the image-related lines.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion.

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began (or, if a new Good Article, the date on which it became a GA), not the date on which you make the nomination.

  • At the top of that subsection (before other nominations already there, but below the section head and hidden comment) add {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Consider adding {{

    Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide.

    To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:

    • Look through this page, Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on.
    • Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.
    • The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.
    • To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

      Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

      If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
    • Save the page.

    If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

    Frequently asked questions


    This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first (so that those hooks don't grow stale), it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions above).

    Where is my hook?

    If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas, promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page.

    If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

    Search archived DYK nomination discussions

    Instructions for other editors

    How to promote an accepted hook

    • See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for full instructions.
    • Hooks that have been approved are located on the approved nominations page.
    • In one window, open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to promote.
    • In another window, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
    • In the prep set...
      • Paste the hook into the hook area (be sure to not paste in that that)
      • Paste the credit information ({{DYKmake}} and/or {{DYKnom}}) into the credits area.
      • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted [[Jane Fonda]]", preview, and save
    • Back on DYK nomination page...
      • change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
      • change |passed= to |passed=yes
      • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted to Prep 3", preview, and save

    How to remove a rejected hook

    • Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
    • In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.

    How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue

    • Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
    • Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
      • View the edit history for that page
      • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
      • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
    • Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
    • If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at
      • Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.


      Older nominations

      Articles created/expanded on December 27

      XIX Army Corps

      • ... that the XIX Army Corps, a Nazi era German Panzer corps, fought its way from Luxembourg to the English Channel in just ten days? Source: Guderian, Heinz (2003) [1950]. Erinnerungen eines Soldaten. Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3879436932. OCLC 460817326.

      Created by Ted52 (talk). Nominated by DannyS712 (talk) at 18:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC).

      Policy compliance:

      Hook eligiblity:

      • Cited: Red XN - I'm probably just blind, but I don't see where the article explicitly supports the material in the DYK hook and cites a source supporting it
      • Interesting: Green tickY
      QPQ: None required.

      Overall: Symbol possible vote.svg I find the article very interesting and comprehensive; I can tell the creator worked very hard on it and that is much appreciated! However, I'm afraid this will require work before it can be eligible. I'd suggest first making sure all material is supported by a reliable sources and then requesting a copy-edit. I haven't fully reviewed for neutrality yet but will soon. Best of wishes, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

      @Ted52: can you take a look at this? I'm not any where to as knowledgeable about this page as you are... --DannyS712 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
      @DannyS712: All material can be supported by sources, but I was of the impression that citing the same page over and over again is just bad style. I could go through the work of citing every paragraph? Ted52 (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
      Hey Ted52. Since you're using an inline citation style, then the general rule is that there should be a cite for at least every paragraph, and if a paragraph has material from multiple citations you may sometimes want to distribute multiple refs within that paragraph. Using a cite multiple times it's not a problem; it's certainly better than having unsourced material. The following sections in particular need to be sourced better:
      • Wizna and Brest-Litovsk (6–16 September 1939)
      • The "German-Soviet Parade" and the Conclusion of the Campaign (17 September - 6 October 1939)
      • Preparations
      • Attack towards the Meuse (10–13 May 1940)
      • In the Somme Basin (17–20 May 1940)
      • Towards Dunkirk (21–29 May 1940)
      • Panzergruppe Guderian and southern Redeployment (28 May - 9 June 1940)
      • Southern Offensive (10–22 June 1940)
      • Panzergruppe 2
      • XIX Mountain Army Corps
      It's an interesting read, and again, I can tell you worked hard on it. Let me know if you have any questions.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
      Template:Reply to:SkyGazer 512Very well, will do. Is there a way I can template one reference and use it for the next? Reentering the same book's info over and over again is cumbersome, but I also don't want to do the thing where it's like "p. 100 - 200", because that's silly. I would like to preferably use the same reference over and over again for like 60% of the passages you inquire about, but with a slightly different page notation each time. The reason why most of the paragraphs aren't cited is exactly that 'cumbersome' functionality of having to build the reference from scratch everytime. Ted52 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
      @Ted52: Well, I suppose you could convert to using {{sfn}} refs. Basically how that works is you have two reference sections; one of them has a list of sources and the other usually just contains {{reflist}}. For the list of sources section, you include |ref=harv at the end of each citation template. Then, whenever you want to use a reference in the article, use the coding {{sfn|Author's last name|Year the author wrote it|pp=Page number range (or p=single page number)}}, and make sure that in the list of sources section each ref has a last= parameter and either a year= or date= parameter. If you do everything correctly, when you click on a sfn ref used in the article, it will be abbreviated and take you to the ref section with the reflist; then if you click on the highlighted ref there, it will take you to that ref's entry in the list of full sources, which only need to be listed once. It sounds confusing, yes, but once you get used to it it's not as bad as it seems. The documentation page for the template gives a lot more details. I can give you some examples if you'd like and I could help you convert the refs for this one. It's often a good idea to use it when there are book citations which you use a large number of pages from. Another technique sometimes used is having sfn for some sources and the other "main" ref style for others, such as using sfn for only books.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
      An example of a page using sfn for only the book refs is Chinese alligator (e.g., the abbreviated Reading & Miller 2000, p. 72. in the reflist which links to the full ref in the sources subsection: Reading, Richard P.; Miller, Brian (2000). Endangered Animals: A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues (illustrated ed.). Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0313308161. Retrieved December 9, 2018.). Molly Morgan is an example of a page which uses sfn for all references except one. If you have any further questions, please let me know; this can seem quite confusing. I highly recommend that you read the documentation page for the sfn template if you might want to use this style.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
      (btw, Ted52, the correct coding for a ping is {{reply to|USERNAME HERE}}, not {{reply to:USERNAME HERE}} :-)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Another way to repeat citations of the same source, specifying different pages, is to define a reference by name (e.g. SOURCE) and combine that with a page number template e.g.
        <ref name="SOURCE"/>{{rp|6-42}}
        Repeat as needed, just give relevant page numbers each time. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

      ─────────────────────────G'day all, I just noticed this on the Milhist alert list. I thought I'd give you a heads-up that Guderian was the commanding general of this formation at the time, and we need to be careful about accepting what he says as gospel, given he is probably too close to the subject. It would be much better if this hook was cited to a reliable source that was independent of the subject. As a general observation, the article relies far too heavily on Guderian's writings, needs more independent reliable sources, and we need to be wary of the clean Wehrmacht trope associated with many Wehrmacht generals trying to whitewash their activities during the war. Also, the article should be at XIX Army Corps (Wehrmacht) IAW pre-emptive disambiguation arrangements for military formations per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

      @Ted52: It's been a while since this nom has received any activity; would it be possible for you to cite the hook to a source that is independent of the subject and reliable, per Peacemaker67's suggestion? Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      @SkyGazer 512:@Peacemaker67: I think I have been quite careful in pointing out the rather obvious flaws with Guderian's writings in terms of the war crimes committed by the German units during the operation, and used them strictly for the purpose of the unit's military movement. Yes, there are authors I could cite - Piekalkiewicz, Mazouwer, Shirer, Frieser, Kershaw, Bishop and others have all at least tangentially written about XIX Army Corps, especially as it was so central to the operational success of the whole campaign. But - and this a big but -, they all go back to Guderian's writings as their source for any troop movements they describe. You'll reliably find his books in their bibliographies, and, if inline citations are used, they either reference him or often earlier authors that also referenced him. You're not going to find precise primary source information about what battle lines the units were to take on Guderian's orders or what crossroads they were to advance to or what towns were or weren't captured in a single day outside of Guderian, who got to use his personal notes for the information at hand. I tried desperately to staff up any information that could be double checked, but even good old Percy Schramm couldn't help me, as his war diaries don't start before August of 1940. So, if it's okay to just phantom cite Guderian through other authors, I guess I can try and do that, but that's hardly intellectually honest. Ted52 (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you very much for your work on the article, Ted52. Looking through this nomination and the article, I think it would be best if I let somebody do the rest of the review. It would be nice to have a second opinion on whether the sourcing is sufficient now. Also, it is a really long article and I have been doing quite a bit in both real life and Wikipedia lately, so I'm not sure I would be able to take thoroughly look over so many paragraphs and sources myself. In addition, I'm not particularly knowledgeable with the article topic (although it is very interesting) or the languages the refs use. Therefore, I'm requesting a new reviewer. I apologize for taking so long to get back.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 00:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

      Symbol question.svg I appreciate the substantial effort that has been put into this article, and I would like to see this nomination move forward. Before I pick up the review, I have a couple suggestions. The article's introduction is very small compared to the text in the main body. I think it should be expanded to adequate summarize the key points of the article. I also note that there are several properly licensed photos in the article which would be suitable for a photo hook. It would be nice to feature this nomination in the photo slot. Once the introduction is expanded, I will go ahead with the full review. Flibirigit (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

      Ted52, thank you for the expanded introduction. It looks good at first glance. I will start reading through in more detail later today. It might take me a few days to do a full review because this is a big article, but I promise to do a bit each day until we are done! Flibirigit (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
      EdChem, your contriubtions to the introduction are noted here. Would you like to help out with this nomination? Thanks again. Flibirigit (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
      Flibirigit, thanks for the acknowledgement. I actually came here as I need to do some QPQ reviews, saw that this needed an intro, and started it. I do mean to extend on it to cover France but have not returned – real life and all that! – but I will get to it within a few days. I can't be a reviewer now that I've added half an intro, but I will help out if I can. Certainly the article deserves main page exposure, but also a copyedit and some referencing work like including English-language titles of references. EdChem (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
      EdChem, thanks again for what you have do so far. I can wait a day or two if time is needed. I understand, as we all get busy. I will likely do this review in bits and pieces since it is a substantial work. Aside from the introduction, I am curious if a hook can be formed from one or more of the photos in the article. I'm also curious about limiting the very long table of contents via Template:TOC limit. We could leave each day as a header, but add one more level to the hierarchy and group them by week or battle perhaps? Flibirigit (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
      I apologize for not getting back to this sooner. I will go over it again in more detail tomorrow and on the weekend. Flibirigit (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
      Ted52, EdChem, I am about halfway finished reading through the article. I will post a finished review tomorrow. I can work with the present hook, but are either of you interested in proposing a hook with a photo? Flibirigit (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

      Second review

      Policy compliance:

      QPQ: Red XN - ?
      Overall: Symbol question.svg The article is still new enough and long enough as in the first review. I found nothing that makes the article biased in favour of either side of the war, and is neutral in tone. I alos detected no plagiarism issues. The hook is interesting, mentioned inline, and is cited by a combination of sources. There is not photo used in this nomination as of yet. The nominator User:DannyS712 has more than five DYK credits, therefore QPQ is required. There are still a few paragraphs which need citations, however I note a big improvement from the first review. Also, there are a few section headers which are blank. I'm unsure if more text is coming to fill these in, or if they can be removed. The introduction appears to summarize only the eastern front. It needs to be expanded with content from the western front. Flibirigit (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

      @Flibirigit: qpq added --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
      Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
      • DannyS712, Flibirigit, I note that the 27 May 1940 and 21 June 1940 sections still remain blank, which is not allowed under DYK rules. Also, if there are any sections that are uncited, these need to be taken care of. DannyS712, do you think these can be taken care of soon? This nomination has been open since the final day of 2018, over five months ago, and really needs to be concluded. Thank you very much for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
      I have posted on the talk pages for Ted52 and EdChem to find out if either have time to contribute. I am willing to do copyediting, but I do not have the time or expertise to research the concerns I mentioned in my review above. If no help is coming soon, I will mark the review for closure. If that happens, I hope the article is eventually improved to GA status and nominated again for DYK. Flibirigit (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
      @Flibirigit: It has to be noted that neither editor has edited this month. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
      @Flibirigit:@Narutolovehinata5: Removed those sections. But frankly, I am no longer interested in this DYK thing. I have no idea why you guys are pursuing this if the article was previously already rejected. But whatever. Ted52 (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
      Symbol possible vote.svg I am sorry to hear that Ted52 no longer wishes to be involved, despite this nomination not being rejected at this time. Since there are still some unsourced sections at this time, this nomination cannot be approved at this time. I will wait a few days to see if EdChem or DannyS712 wish to continue. Flibirigit (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
      @Flibirigit:: It's not so much about no longer wishing to be involved and more so my dissatisfaction with the intransparency of the process. However, I am interested in keeping the article to the highest quality possible. What do you think needs more sourcing? Ted52 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
      Ted, thank you for be willing to continue with the article. I will compile of list of sourcing questions and post it here by tomorrow or Friday at the latest. As for the transparency of DYK, I am more than willing to answer any questions. The rules and processes for the project are outlined here at Wikipedia:Did you know. At the Wikipedia talk:Did you know page, you are also welcome to ask any questions you like. Thanks again. Flibirigit (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
      Sourcing questions

      Please see list of sourcing questions below. All paragraphs must have at least one citation at the end, as per the DYK rules. Flibirigit (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

      1. Section: Poland Campaign-->Preparations. Last two sentences of the second paragraph are not cited.
      2. Section: Poland Campaign-->Action at Tuchola Forest (1–5 September 1939). First paragraph is not cited. Maybe it should be combined with the paragraph which follows it.
      3. Section: Western Campaign-->Preparations for the Western Campaign. Ambiguous whether citation [35] applies to some of all of lists which follow it.
      4. Section: Western Campaign-->10 May 1940. First paragraph has no citation.
      5. Section: Western Campaign-->12 May 1940. First paragraph has no citation.
      6. Section: Western Campaign-->13 May 1940. Second paragraph has no citation.
      7. Section: Western Campaign-->13 May 1940. Last paragraph has no citation at the end.
      8. Section: Western Campaign-->14 May 1940. First two paragraphs have no citations.
      9. Section: Western Campaign-->14 May 1940. Fourth paragraph has no citation at the end.
      10. Section: Western Campaign-->16 May 1940. Paragraph has citations in it, but not at the end.
      11. Section: Western Campaign-->21 May 1940. Last paragraph has no citation at the end.
      12. Section: Western Campaign-->22 May 1940. Second paragraph has no citation at the end.
      13. Section: Western Campaign-->25 May 1940. Paragraph has citations in it, but not at the end.
      14. Section: Western Campaign-->29 May 1940. Paragraph has citations in it, but not at the end.
      15. Section: Western Campaign-->11 June 1940. First paragraph has no citation at the end.
      • Flibirigit I've always interpreted the sourcing requirements to be one per paragraph, not one per paragraph, required to be at the end of the paragraph. Where are you seeing that? --valereee (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
      • That's correct, valereee. WP:DYKSG#D2 includes the following: A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. The uncited paragraphs need to be cited. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
      In the interests of not overwhelming this creator, who is a very new editor, does anyone object to me striking the questions that only object to paragraphs that have no citation at the end? --valereee (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      With all due respect to everyone involved, this review has been going on for months, with numerous issues being hacked out on the nomination page. Meanwhile the article in question hasn't been edited by User:Ted52 in more than a week. My suggestion at this point would be to remove this DYK nomination, and bring the XIX Army Corps article up to GA, where in that event it will be once again elligable for another DYK nomination. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      Once again, I don't get tagged when something is demanded of me. I really cannot reasonably be expected to follow a DYK nomination process that I myself didn't initiate. I apologize to have wasted everyone's time, but please cancel the DYK nomination now. That said, I have now complied with the citation requests by Flibirigit. Ted52 (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      I'm sorry for initiating this - when I first came across the article I thought it had potential for DYK. I didn't realize how much of a burden this would be. @Ted52: sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg There appears to be agreement between the article creator and the nominator that the article is not ready for DYK at this time. Marking for closure as withdrawn, without prejudice towards renomination if the article is brought to GA status. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      Symbol question.svg The added citations by @Ted52: are a great improvement to the article. The only remaining concern I have mentioned is the introduction summarizing the Eastern Front, and not the Western Front. If anyone wishes to expand the introduction accordingly, the nomination will be a pass in my review. Flibirigit (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      Flibirigit, pinging nom DannyS712 as Ted52 is simply the creator. From reading through the review, I'm not sure Ted52 was actually up for the DYK process. I like the article a lot and would like to see it get to DYK, but I'm not sure it's fair for us to ask Ted52 to do the work! :D --valereee (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      Flibirigit, I would like to suggest that the article is complete enough for DYK standards. WP:DYKSG#D7 is the relevant guideline: while it would be nice to have the Western front information in the introduction, it is all included in the body of the article. DYK articles are expected to be works in progress, for the most part. The nomination has been open for five and a half months; we shouldn't be keeping it pending when the actual DYK requirements appear to have been met. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      It is not necessary to ping me on this page. If I do some minor copyediting, expand the introduction and the pass the review, would the DYK community still feel I am a neutral reviewer? Flibirigit (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      Sorry for the ping; I'm using an autoresponder that adds it in as a default, but I'll try to remember to delete it when replying to you! I have no objection to you making article edits and then finishing the review here. --valereee (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      I will start updating the introduction today, and hopefully give final approval by tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
      I am still working on this in my sandbox. I should finish within a day or two.

      1 the Road

      • ... that artificial intelligences have have begun to write novels? Source: "On March 25, 2017, a black Cadillac with a white-domed surveillance camera attached to its trunk departed Brooklyn for New Orleans. An old GPS unit was fastened atop the roof. Inside, a microphone dangled from the ceiling. Wires from all three devices fed into Ross Goodwin’s Razer Blade laptop, itself hooked up to a humble receipt printer. This, Goodwin hoped, was the apparatus that was going to produce the next American road-trip novel." (and link the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
        • ALT1:... that at nine seventeen in the morning, the house was heavy? Source: It is a partial quote of the AIs first words "The novel begins suitably enough, quoting the time: “It was nine seventeen in the morning, and the house was heavy.”" (and link the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

      Created by RTG (talk). Self-nominated at 06:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC).

      • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, within policy, and the hook meets the hook criteria. Good to go. In my personal opinion, however (@RTG: this is more food for thought if anything) that the premise of the article is interesting enough as it is (the first book to be written by AI!) that it doesn't really need a super quirky hook like ALT1 to capture the reader's attention, and the primary hook might be a tad confusing as readers may think that it's an article talking about AIs writing novels in general when it's instead about a specific novel. I personally think something super simple like ALT2: ... that 1 the Road is marketed as the first novel to be written by an artificial intelligence? would work best, but again, that's up to you Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
      Yes the primary is clunky. ~ R.T.G 11:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed for ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
      Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2 is the best hook listed here. It is very catchy, properly cited and mentioned in the article. Accepting hook, with the rest of the review as per User:Satellizer above.Flibirigit (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't find an inline cite for the ALT2 hook fact. I also don't think the article is start-class yet. It has a largely uncited lead section and one paragraph of authorship, also cited to a single source. Aren't there any production details or publishing history? Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Sorry I musn't have pressed send. In fact the first article is called "The First Novel Written by AI Is Here—and It’s as Weird as You’d Expect It to Be" and it goes on to say, "1 The Road is currently marketed as the first novel written by AI." A quote from the AI creator Goodwin. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @RTG: OK, I moved the cite up to the first sentence in the lead. But the article still doesn't seem start-class. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I must put it that this article requires the reader to scroll to finish reading. The subject is a book which makes no sense, is significant only in regard of its author, and has captured a lack of popularity which is both amazing and unsurprising at the same time. If 1 the Road was published in 2000, or even 2010, you could be telling us there was too much useless information in the article, but this is the future and the future is way more crap than advertised.
      • Sorry for the delays. I swear my ping system sometimes flashes up a ping then makes it disappear before I can read it. I must request somewhere that no notification ever be auto-deleted. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 07:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Symbol possible vote.svg It has been another month without any further needed action from RTG. Allowing another seven days for action, but after that, this may well be marked for closure as abandoned by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I am the last one to post here. You say, "without any further needed action from RTG" yet in the next sentence that I have abandoned the nomination under a deadline for "action". The reviewer is asking for more than DYK requires. The reviewer is claiming they simply can't believe the topic is so short. I'm agreeing with them. They are the ones who have left it here. If they just reviewed it under the DYK rules, it would have been done long ago because it met that on the first day. It was written specifically with DYK in mind. "This will make a good DYK," I was thinking. The purpose of DYK as I recall was to attract editors to new content, not present them with a finished article. The idea was to have the article to a certain standard, not the ultimate standard. I've gone over it several times. I don't want to lose any love for the topic. I repeat, I have responded here. It is not my action you are waiting for. The article meets the character limit. It meets all of the DYK rules. The reviewer is asking for more. Please tell them not to, thanks. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 09:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      • RTG, as far as I could tell, Yoninah was saying that the article, while technically meeting the 1500-character length criterion, did not meet "a certain standard"—it wasn't sufficiently robust (hence the comment about not being start-class, which is the next level of quality above a stub). I believe she was referring to this rule: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. I notice that another editor has expanded the article from 1728 to 1996 prose characters; perhaps Yoninah can take another look to see whether her concerns have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      • OK, I rewrote the lead and added more information from the sources, as well as reorganized the page so it reads like a Wikipedia article. I removed the part about it being 60 million words long, which is a misquote from the source. The article is now start-class. But ALT2 is not going to work. An article about it in The Atlantic states: "They’re collected in 1 the Road, a book Goodwin’s publisher, Jean Boîte Éditions, is marketing as “the first novel written by a machine.” (Though, for the record, Goodwin says he disagrees it should bear that distinction—“That might be The Policeman’s Beard Is Half Constructed by a program from the ’80s,” he tells me.)" Perhaps it's best to say just that the novel was written by artificial intelligence, period. Yoninah (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I am compelled to disagree with Yoninah by pointing out they haven't added any substantial amount of information and have merely copy edited and detailed the information already there. It seems a positive contribution. There is no "misquote". It says sixty million words and gives the megabyte size of those words before later in the article giving a description of another collection of twenty million words, and the megabyte size of that (twenty million words from which the AI draws words and phrases for its prose), so it is easy to draw the comparison. Yoninahs suggestion feels like if one publication disputes another, to delete the whole thing? It doesn't seem to match the modus operandi of the site. You report the dispute, even if it is your own words saying simply, sources disagree about one point on this subject, rather than pretend there is no possible reliable source of information. The curses of an overabundance of information is not in our rationale? ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 16:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @RTG: Well, we are constantly running into problems with eagle-eyed editors who will find someone or something else that was the "first".
      • If you could supply a source that says the novel is 60 million words long, we can use it in the hook, like:
      • ALT2: ... that an artificial intelligence has written a 60-million-word novel? Yoninah (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • The 60 million words is a misquote. The sixty million words is a reference to the pool the AI drew from. ALT2 is wrong to my mistake. The AI drew from several 20 million word lists of literature totalling 60 million words. Sorry about that... ~ R.T.G 07:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

      Symbol redirect vote 4.svg review is needed for the new hooks proposed. Flibirigit (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

      Articles created/expanded on March 8

      British Rail Class 458

      A South West Trains Class 458 which was converted from a former Gatwick Express Class 460. The unit number is 458533.
      A South West Trains Class 458 which was converted from a former Gatwick Express Class 460. The unit number is 458533.

      Improved to Good Article status by Pkbwcgs (talk). Self-nominated at 17:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC).

      • Symbol voting keep.svg QPQ not needed. Promoted to GA on March 8. Hook is interesting. Article is NPOV with no obvious copyvio. Image is currently CC licensed. (I took the liberty of adding (pictured) to ALT-1.) The hook is inline cited using the term "reconfigured" instead of "converted" which I think is fine. The source used to cite that is offline (Modern Railways), however, meets what I would consider a reasonable definition of RS. All looks good. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
        Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this. I was wondering if it's obvious that the hook is referring to British Rail Class cars (it's not obvious to me). I also wonder if anyone cares. This is a GA; could you suggest a better hook? Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Yoninah: How about ALT3 which replaces "Class 460" with "trains" with a link to the article Class 460. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Pkbwcgs: I have a feeling you're so familiar with the subject that you can't see it like an outsider. I don't live in England. I have never taken a train. I'm afraid that ALT3 isn't even remotely interesting to me. What would make it interesting is adding another fact that I could relate to, like the cars were too squishy, or cars were eliminated in the process of renovation, or...? Yoninah (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Yoninah: How about ALT4? Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Pkbwcgs: Better, thanks! Please add an inline cite after that sentence. Chetsford could you review ALT4 please? Yoninah (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Yoninah: This source. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Pkbwcgs: thank you. I meant you should add a cite to the article after this sentence: Six of the eight Class 460 trains lost three carriages in the process, leaving them as 5-car trains that were also reconfigured as class 458/5 trains. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Yoninah: That is the best source I can find to give the general idea that the eight-car Class 460s were converted to six five-car Class 458. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Pkbwcgs: OK. So are you going to add the citation to the article?
        Meanwhile, I see someone else has deleted the part about losing 3 carriages. Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Yoninah: I reverted the edit as the previous version was more detailed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Pkbwcgs: OK. Please add the inline cite to the sentence about losing three carriages. Yoninah (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Yoninah: I can't find a citation that says that the Class 460s have lost three carriages. The best I could give was the website I have stated above. I may need help from another user who has expertise in British railways. Maybe User:Redrose64 could help. I have done a detailed search and the citation from railnews was the best I could find. Perhaps this citation could be better but it doesn't make a specific mention of the Class 460s losing carriages. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Pkbwcgs: OK. So from a DYK point of view, we need another hook. From a GA point of view, that sentence does need to be sourced, or deleted. Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
        From what I understand, it goes something like this. Class 458 was originally 30 x 4-car units, total 120 cars; class 460 was originally 8 x 8-car units, total 64 cars; for a grand total of 184 cars. Of the 8-car units, six have been reduced to 5-car units and redesignated class 458, releasing (6 x (8-5)) = 18 cars; the other two 8-car units were disbanded, releasing 16 cars of which four have been stripped for spares and scrapped. This means that the cars released from class 460 units totalled (18 + 16 - 4) = 30 cars, exactly the number required to strengthen all of the 4-car Class 458 units to 5-car. The final tally is 36 x 5-car units, total 180 cars. So in terms of factual accuracy, ALT4 should have the word "each" inserted before the word "lost". But I don't have a source explicitly stating that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
        The more I look at this, the more shaky ALT4 becomes. Having now analysed the individual car numbers allocated to the units before and after conversion (using various editions of the Platform 5 "British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock"), here is the breakdown:
        Former units 460001 and 460002 were entirely split up, each car ending up in a different unit, with six cars from each (12 in all) going to former 4-car units, three cars being redistributed among the other former Class 460 units, and one car scrapped
        Former units 460003 to 460008 were partially split up, with three cars from each unit (18 in all) going to former 4-car units, but the remaining five cars of each were not kept together:
        • 458531 includes two cars from 460008 and one each from 460002, 460003 and 460006
        • 458532 includes three cars from 460007 and one each from 460004 and 460005
        • 458533 includes three cars from 460003 and one each from 460006 and 460007
        • 458534 includes four cars from 460004 and one from 460008
        • 458535 includes four cars from 460005 and one from 460001
        • 458536 includes three cars from 460006 and one each from 460002 and 460008
        The four scrapped cars were one each from 460001, 460003, 460007 and 460008.
        So I find that there isn't a single instance of a class 458 unit containing five cars from the same class 460 unit, which is what we would expect if three cars had been removed from six of the 8-car units. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Pkbwcgs, Chetsford, Yoninah, and Redrose64: This has been stuck for over a month. Any updates? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
        I added a new hook above. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Symbol question.svg I find it hard to find ALT5 in the article. All I see is a chart with the (unsourced) number 6 as to the number of trains. I also think that all the life has gone out of the hook. This is a GA; could you suggest something else that is interesting and has an inline cite? Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Reading the hooks again, I have to say that none of them are really interesting to a broad audience: at best maybe they only appeal to train fans. I agree with what Yoninah mentioned above: can something better be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I agree that the Gatwick Express-linked hooks are quite specialised and dry, too much so really, but I think there is a wealth of potentially interesting hooks in the article - I've suggested some below. Spokoyni (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
      • ALT6:... that the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) were awarded a Golden Spanner?
      • ALT7:... that the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) initially suffered failures on average every 4,300 miles (6,900 km)?
      • ALT8:... that the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) initially suffered failures on average every 4,300 miles (6,900 km), but by 2012 managed 106,049 miles (170,669 km) between failures?
      • ALT9:... that the Class 458s (pictured) were the first new fleet of trains to be delivered following the privatisation of British Rail?
      • ALT10:... that six years after first entering service, the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) were so unreliable that their operator considered replacing them all?
      • ALT11:... that in 2004 the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) were so unreliable that their operator considered replacing them all, but by 2012 they were the most reliable fleet in Britain?
      Symbol question.svg Of the new hooks, I think ALT10 and ALT11 are the best, with a slight preference for ALT11 as it shows both the reliability and unreliability. I don't have access to the sources used for them so I am assuming good faith. This is almost ready to go: my only concern is that there's no footnote in the "Fleet details" section. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
      I like ALT11 and I think that this should be used as the source for the hook. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
      @Pkbwcgs: Can you please cite the "Fleet details" sections so that this can be approved? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
      @Narutolovehinata5: I have cited the "Fleet details" section. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
      Almost good to go: however only one of the cells has a footnote, when both probably need it (I can't seem to verify one cell in the source given, the one about TSOL). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
      @Pkbwcgs: Ping. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
      @Narutolovehinata5: I haven't been editing regularly so I couldn't reply. I can't find sources for the extra Class 460 TSOL vehicle. I have looked everywhere. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

      Articles created/expanded on March 12

      Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff

      Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 23:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC), co-nom by DBigXray 12:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC) .

      • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, since the nomination is continuing rather than being withdrawn. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review still needed; it's been over two weeks with no review posted. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
      • This is a poorly written article on one of the most volatile areas in the encyclopedia. I remain inclined to work on this article and get rid of the UNDUE stuff. WBGconverse 13:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @

        Felipe Reinoso

        Created/expanded by Vycl1994 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

        • Symbol question.svg The lead is too short. In the original hook "state legislature" must be replaced by "state legislature of US". RRD (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
        The article lede now mentions Reinoso's tenure on the Connecticut House, and his election to the Peruvian legislature. ALT3 above specifies U. S. state legislature in addition to the wikilink state legislature (United States) that was already present. Vycl1994 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
        @Vycl1994: The lead claims that he was born in circa 1950. However, there is no source for it in the article. I have also added a when tag to the article. The article needs a little copyedit also. RRD (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

        Pema Dhondup

        Created by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk). Self-nominated at 21:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

        • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is too short, and contains less than 500 bytes of readable prose, which is all in the lead section. Please expand the article to have at least 1,500 bytes of readable prose. List and plot info do not count toward this total. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
        • @Ynhockey: I've expand the article.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
          • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Thanks, the length looks OK now, though I would still recommend expanding the article further. In any case, the article requires copyediting for grammar and style; I have added a relevant tag, this will likely be addressed by the guild of copyeditors. Feel free to post a request on their page to speed up the process. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
          • @Ynhockey: I've fixed copyediting for grammar and style. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
            • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: It seems that the article is still not well-written, and contains many English language mistakes. I see that you have requested a review at GOCE though, I think we can wait until they help you. I might be able to do so at a later time, but then another reviewer needs to look at the nom. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
            • @Ynhockey: Article has been copy edited by Guild of Copy Editors___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol confirmed.svg Hook + source look good, article issues have been fixed. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I do not understand the hook. What is a "Nepalese Hollywood film"? The source doesn't call it that, nor does Wikipedia's article about it. Also, the hook seems to be implying that it is the first Nepalese Hollywood film, while the article says it is Dhondup's first Nepalese Hollywood film. I suggest you fix this description in the article and try a different hook. Mentioning his background or studies in Los Angeles might lend themselves to a better hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
        • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: you new hook doesn't make sense. "Between" implies a contrast between two things, not one. I also don't see the hook fact in the article. I fleshed out the biography and note that you are not making full use of your sources in writing the article. While I used his LinkedIn page for biographical details, you can look up these facts online and then credit them to other sources if you wish. Here is another hook idea:
        • ALT2: ... that Pema Dhondup studied filmmaking at the University of Southern California on a Fulbright scholarship so he could use the medium to tell the story of his "lost generation" of Tibetan youth? Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
        I like ALT2 the best but at 193 it's really long and probably could use some trimming. Yoninah. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol question.svg I like ALT2a but the problem is that the article may still need some form of copyedit. The grammar is off at times and there are some improperly capitalized trademarks (such as the mention of Sony). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
        Narutolovehinata5, I have fixed the capitalized trademarks.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

        Articles created/expanded on March 25

        Golem (Casken opera)

        • ... that John Casken's 1989 opera Golem received the first Britten Award for Composition? Source: book source

        Created by Marosc9 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 16:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC).

        • Symbol confirmed.svg - new and long enough (barely). Inline citations checks. Review made. No image to review. Hook looks interesting enough for inclusion. BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol question.svg What is this award? If it's notable, can a page be started to link it? Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
        • No idea. Midnight, and Easter for 2 days. Patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
        • I would have created a page on the Britten Award for Composition myself but research on the internet came up with almost nothing on it beyond John Casken being the first winner for Golem and Philip Cashian being the second winner, though I don't know what the composition was in his case. I've emailed the Britten Pears Foundation today who, if anyone should, should have more information. Let's see what they come back with. --Marosc9 (talk)
        • @Marosc9: thank you. But if it's not a notable award, why are you using it as a hook fact? Could you suggest another hook? Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
        • I think you need to ask those questions of the nominator Gerda Arendt. I'm hoping the Pears Britten Foundation will be able to provide enough of a lead so that I can write an article on the award.
        • Suggesting ALTs below, might work better since the award in question does have an article (which says that it is considered the Oscars of classical music):
        ALT1 ... that John Casken's 1989 opera Golem won the 1991 Gramophone Classical Music Award for Best Contemporary Recording?
        ALT2 ... that John Casken's 1989 opera Golem is a recipient of a Gramophone Classical Music Award, often considered as the "Oscars of classical music"?
        @Gerda Arendt, Marosc9, BabbaQ, and Yoninah: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
        Thank you for offering. ALT1 is fine by me. ALT2 has too much focus on the award for my taste. --



        5x expanded by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 10:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC).

        • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. It's been nearly three weeks without any follow-up. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol possible vote.svg Article meets the technical requirements. Assuming good faith for the offline sources. No close paraphrasing found, QPQ done. However, the children table lacks a reference, and I feel that the current hook might be too prosaic to be hooky. Perhaps a better hook could be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
        @Narutolovehinata5: The children table has been removed. New hook
        I think that's a much better hook. Will try to give this a full review by tomorrow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
        I apologize for the delay as I had been caught up in other matters. Anyway, I have two issues at the moment: firstly, the sentence discussing ALT1 lacks a footnote. Secondly, are there more details about this revenue administration system? The sentence that comes after seems to talk more about government administration than the revenue administration. Or was that sentence the one which discussed the revenue administration system? The wording isn't very clear on that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
        @Narutolovehinata5: I have now added an inline cite
        Comment I know we've moved on from Alt0, but just in case: 'restrained' is probably not the intended word. Refrained? --valereee (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
        @Valereee: Probably. I am not a native speaker of English. What I meant that Lord Bentick did not interfere into Hyderabad state during the reign of the Nizam Nasir-ud-daulah. RRD (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
        Royroydeb, 'refrained from interfering', then! He might have 'restrained himself from interfering' also. It's a mistake even native speakers might make. --valereee (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
        I think my issue with ALT2 is that it uses simply "Nizam" despite being a relatively unfamiliar word: using the full term "Nizam of Hyderabad" might be a better option here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

        Articles created/expanded on April 4

        Proposed 2019 amendment to the Constitution of Malaysia

        Created by Night Lantern (talk). Self-nominated at 09:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC).

        • Will be claiming this for review; I have struck ALT1 as being too long and too winding. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol question.svg Took a quick look at it and the article is a bit long for a short review, but right now my concern is the "Background" section. It doesn't seem to present the material in a neutral way, and even seems to use some POV-ish language. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
        Hi there! Thanks for the review Mr. errr.. Naruto? 😅 Regarding the "background section", do you mean the POV on word such as "ignorance"? Seems I don't have idea on what choice of words that are very suitable for the replacement, mind to share some suggestion? Night Lanternhalo? 08:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
        This would include words that "Among the very sensitive breached agreement", "negligence", "cannot appreciate the diversity and decentralisation were connected in the process aside from the ignorance", which are not suitable for Wikipedia in their current form. One suggestion I could give could be to request for a copyedit of the article over at WP:GOCE/R; this could also prove useful as there are also quite a few grammatical errors in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
        Symbol possible vote.svg I've gone ahead and requested a copyedit; this nomination should be put on hold until that is finished. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
        Thank you Mr. Naruto. ☺ Night Lanternhalo? 02:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

        ───────────────────────── Hi Narutolovehinata5, I have rewritten the background section. There's still a lot of room for improvement, so it would still benefit from a GOCE lookover, but I believe it is an improvement in terms of POV. CMD (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

        I'll defer comment until the copyedit is accomplished given the sheer length of the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol delete vote.svg I received a message that the copyedit will not be finished due to concerns about copyright violations, as well as a general need for restructuring. Taking these into account, the article does not appear to be ready for DYK at this time. Sorry for the bad news. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
        After the copy-edit by Mr. Blackmane, the percentage of copyright violation is about 37.9% based on data from Earwig's. I agree there still the need for sentence restructuring, thank you for taking your time to review the nomination. Many thanks to the copy editor as well. ☺ Night Lanternhalo? 00:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
        As I've been pinged, I'll add a few comments. The biggest problem (apart from copyvio) is the chronology is all over the place, especially with the use of sources. Some sources are used to discuss aspects that occurred before the vote, but the same source would also be used for aspects that occurred after the vote. This would be very confusing for the reader. I would suggest reconsidering the layout of the reaction section. Also, the responses sections needs a massive pruning, there's more material on the response than there is on the actual substance of the amendment. Just my 2 cents. Blackmane (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


        1. ^ Adam Aziz (9 April 2019). "No two-thirds majority for Bill to make Sabah, Sarawak equal partners". The Edge Markets. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
        2. ^ "Status of Sabah, Sarawak stays". Bernama. Daily Express. 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
        3. ^ "Bill to make Sabah, Sarawak equal partners rejected in Malaysia parliament". Bernama. Channel NewsAsia. 10 April 2019. Retrieved 10 April 2019.

        Articles created/expanded on April 6

        Amy Wax

        Created by Mhym (talk). Self-nominated at 02:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC).

        • Symbol possible vote.svg Comment. There was an earlier (first paragraphs nearly identical, except for some deletions by the nom in this second one) version of this page at AFC by an editor other than the nom here: In some ways that earlier version was better -- it had footnotes for every assertion in the first few paragraphs, while in this version nom took them out. This version also needs grammar cleanup - "the" and "a" and similar words were dropped from the first version, where needed. Also, some facts, like that the subject attended Harvard Law School, were deleted for some reason. I think if the first version is made viewable and this one is improved along these lines this will be better for approval for this category. Also, when in this version nom writes "Amy Wax has been called "notorious..", maybe it would be an improvement to say by whom. Also, it may be a good idea to have the controversy paragraph, which presents only one side, instead comply with wp:npov (representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic; and switching out "claimed" for "said"; etc.).2604:2000:E010:1100:A066:E3A3:DD44:3FFC (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
        • This is a stub, not a WP:GA. I agree it can use some work. That's part of the purpose of DYK - to bring attention to new or newly revised article, if I remember correctly. As to your assertion - I did not copy anyone's previous article but wrote from scratch instead. Some technical wording is copied from Wax's CV, which may explain similarities. I don't think terminology and official award titles are a copyvio. Please fee free to improve the article and/or the hook. Mhym (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks. First, can an admin please make available the article that was hidden from view here: ? It has important information that should be in this article, for one thing. Its was created before this draft, its deletion followed shortly (by mere hours) the submission of this article, and its deletion is not un-controversial (which was the asserted basis for its deletion).
        Second, I agree a stub is fine. But for an article to appear at DYK on the main page, I think we should be careful to have footnotes for every assertion. The deleted draft had them - for the same information where the footnotes are missing here. One of the reasons I have asked for the deleted draft page to be restored.
        The prior version also has fixes to the grammatical problems of missing words that I noted we have in this second version. For the main page, I do not think we want such errors.
        Also, you did not say anything about the problem I pointed out with the controversy paragraph you drafted. It presents only one side. I think for the main page in particular, we would want to comply with wp:npov. This does not. To do that we would have to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. We would also switch out "claimed" for "said", as wp:npov suggests.2604:2000:E010:1100:CD84:F876:2C42:BC9E (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
        • As far as providing all the refs and links - I don't have access to those which used to be there. Please help me with this if you have them. I guess I don't see any vio of WP:NPOV. Basically, it's all biographical, no opinion based. As in she said something. Others didn't like it. Some people called on UPenn to fire her. UPenn didn't. What exactly is non-neutral here? Reporting groundswell of support of Wax? I don't know if that happened. Mhym (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Happy to help. I've now twice asked the editor who deleted it to restore it (in addition, it its deletion is not controversial, the reason given for deleting it). I've also asked here - maybe an admin here will help. It has more information (her attending Harvard Law, family background, etc). If you read NPOV, you will see that the cherry-picking of those with one view of her statement, while leaving out completely those who support her statement (or her right to make it), is something we are supposed to try to avoid. There are a number of articles pointing out the other camp; in your research you would have seen them. If you want me to, I will do the work. Also, saying "claimed" instead of "said" - as the guideline states - is a sign of not being sensitive to the need for npov. The guideline explains why. Anyway, once we get the original draft, which was more complete and had all the references that are missing, I will be happy to help you get this promoted. BTW - what inspired you to write this article just now (unless it was coincidence), while there was another draft article awaiting promotion (that incident was in the news, but quite a while ago)?2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Glad to hear you can help. I came across critique/praise of her research work, tried to look her up and found no WP article. I don't care for the controversies and didn't hear them at the time. But they clearly make her notable, probably more than her research work, unfortunately. Thus I included the section. AFIK, the wording can be massaged and improved in any way. That's also why I made a DYK nom - so that other editor help improve on the article while I am no longer very involved. Mhym (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Great. I am happy to help you improve this article as soon as an admin helps us by restoring for reference the draft that preceded this one, with the relevant text and footnotes that this later version is missing. It was deleted as a "non-controversial" deletion, but since there is now controversy about it being deleted, I hope an admin can restore it (at least long enough for us to look at it to improve this one). Then we can improve this, improve the npov issue, and put this in shape for a DYK for you. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
        Here, see why this was so weird! Just when the draft of this subject was cleared of any question of copyvio, after it had been sitting awaiting for a couple of days for all to see, as it awaited promotion to article status -- that was the very same day of all days that your article was created! [1] And its not as though she was in the news that day, or week, or month. And as you can see, the article that had been put up for review prior to your draft is very similar (except for the last paragraph that yours added). [2] I will work now to help you to make your draft better, adding the omitted footnotes, etc.2604:2000:E010:1100:D0B2:B1DE:173C:580 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
        Thank you for your work! The article is in a good shape now and ready for review. Mhym (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Drive-by comment: I would recommend against using the word "controversial" in a hook without explaining how she has been controversial. feminist (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Came to suggest the same thing. Taken by itself, "controversial" is confusing because it doesn't define what kind of statements caused the controversy. hinnk (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol question.svg I agree with the above two comments. I think the article itself is now fine. I added the footnotes from the prior article, so that every assertion has a footnote. And there is now a balance in the controversy section, with views on both sides reflected -- rather than just one side. But as the prior editors point out, the hook could use some massaging (also, the bit in the third hook about race relations isn't quite accurate). 2604:2000:E010:1100:A82D:DCDC:4C65:430B (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol confirmed.svg - New enough, long enough, inline citations checks out. I prefer the second hook. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

        Symbol possible vote.svg I've had to pull this from prep for two reasons: firstly, there were objections by other editors above that the word "controversial" shouldn't be used in the hook, and secondly, the nominator appears to have more than five DYK credits (based on their talk page) and appears to have not done a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

        I am the nominator. My last nom was in 2010. I have no idea what is QPQ, but I am guessing this is a post-2010 invention. For practical purposes, after so many years, I am a newcomer. Please WP:DBN! Mhym (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
        As your last nomination was before the QPQ rule was implemented, perhaps there could be an WP:IAR case here and ignore that requirement for the purposes of this nomination (if you want to read more about the rule, please read WP:QPQ). However, there is still the problem of the hooks having the word "controversial", which other editors have objected to. One possible solution could be to simply delete the word from the hooks, though I'm not sure if there's consensus that this would solve the issue. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
        I am the 2604 IP above. I'm ok with the article, and ok with the hook with the word controversial (it is a hook -- it is supposed to hook the reader in to get them to read more, not explain everything .. as wp:hook says it should be "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article") or without the word controversial. 2604:2000:E010:1100:A4C1:B86F:6F82:993D (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        You may want to read WP:BLP. In any case, I think referring to a living person as "controversial", especially on the main page, regardless of whatever really happened, is a very very bad idea. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        I would actually prefer ALT2 which moves "controversial" away from Dr. Wax to her statements. There is no BLP issue in that case, as numerous issues are controversial by their nature, including race relations. Mhym (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        Agree. And her comments being controversial is mentioned and referenced in the article itself. And -- get this -- the living person herself (Wax) wrote in the Wall Street Journal that she wrote "a controversial op-ed." I don't see a BLP issue here at all, under the circumstances. 2604:2000:E010:1100:9DA0:73BE:71E9:B67E (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        There still appears to be reservations about the use of the word "controversial", and based on the comments by Feminist and Hinnk above, I'm not sure if ALT2 would be enough to allay those concerns. A new direction may be needed in any case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        I was initially in that camp, above. But now am with the majority. Given the points made above. But anyway, how about changing it to "controversial statements regarding Black law school student performance." That's actually probably better.

        Bohumil Herlischka

        5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 15:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC).

        • I've struck ALT0 as being insufficiently interesting to a broad audience. ALT1 is somewhat better, if only because of the mention of the tour stopping in Israel. I will leave the reviewing to another editor. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
        I object to the striking but leave it to someone else to undo it. A Czech stage director introduces the works by a underrated Czech composer to Germany, initiating him to be staged rather frequently, and this is so much appreciated that a cycle is done, comparable to the Wagner's Ring cycle, and the Zurich Mozart cycle, and you think that's not interesting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
        I don't think it's interesting to people unfamiliar with classical music, which I'd assume is the vast majority of Wikipedia readers. Remember that we are writing for general audiences, not opera fans, and I don't think the typical reader would know or even care who these people are or what these songs are. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
        These songs are operas - works of several hours each, and the staging of a single one is a giant and expensive effort, and now it's six! - and again, people who don't know what an opera is will not enjoy the article, but we can also tells those something special who recognize names as being Czech. - For some reason, you seamed to understand that for the artist Overton we should say something differentiating her work of giant sculptures from tiny pictures, - why not here? The Schoenberg was a great feat, no doubt about that (people though it could not be staged at all, and the premiere was music only), but the Czech, where the soprano said that he really knew about peasants in that area and how to get that on the stage, connects better to his origins. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
        I'm sorry Gerda, but are you having difficulty understanding my point? You said that "people who don't know what an opera is will not enjoy the article", and that is actually a major issue! If anything, that kind of viewpoint would even further disqualify the hook fact from being allowed: a hook being interesting to a broad audience is required, and those that do not meet that standard tend to be rejected. DYK is intended for people who don't know about a topic, and writing hooks with that are intentionally made to be interesting only to a specific audience not only is against DYK rules, but defeats the whole purpose of the project. Think of it this way: you want to educate common people about classical music, right? Well if I was an ordinary reader, no way would I read the hook or the article since I would not get the point. We're trying to help you here Gerda: this is not intended to discredit you, your contributions, or your interests, we are only trying to help you avoid complaints and the like. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
        I can't help that my topics are kind of in a niche, and the hooks about them have a tendency to follow, - or would not say something specific to the topics. - I was trained to make only 2 comments in a discussion, sorry for a third. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

        New day (from my talk, where this came up): If I have only one sentence to speak about a person's life achievements, I want that to be his best, regardless of that it may not be of interest to the general reader, just believing firmly that it should interest the general leader. For the sake of brevity (but loosing that it was a project that took 8 years to be accomplished):

        ALT2: ... that Bohumil Herlischka staged a cycle of six operas by Leoš Janáček, presented at the Deutsche Oper am Rhein in the 1977/78 season? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

        Honestly, ALT2 doesn't really solve the issues I had raised above regarding broad interest. Again, it really only appeals to classical music enthusiasts, and I can't see people of other interests being fond of this one. Right now, one possible way move forward appears to be to go with a variation of ALT1. Something along the lines of:
        ALT3... that Bohumil Herlischka's production of Schoenberg's Moses und Aron, which premiered at the Hamburg State Opera, was later performed in Israel?
        Personally I think that a German production being performed at a non-European country could be appealing. If you don't like this suggestion, there are still other possibilities, like how one of his plays was created to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Deutsche Oper am Rhein. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

        Since Gerda wasn't able to respond, I'll propose the following hooks below based on my above suggestion; she is free to reject them if she doesn't like them, or to suggest a reword:

        ALT4 ... that Bohumil Herlischka directed the opera Behold the Sun – Die Wiedertäufer, which was commissioned for the 25th anniversary of the Deutsche Oper am Rhein?
        ALT4a ... that Bohumil Herlischka directed the opera Behold the Sun – Die Wiedertäufer for the 25th anniversary of the Deutsche Oper am Rhein?
        ALT4b ... that to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Deutsche Oper am Rhein, Bohumil Herlischka directed the opera Behold the Sun – Die Wiedertäufer?

        I just realized that had this been proposed earlier, the hook could have worked as a special occasion hook for April 19, but I guess it's too late now. Here are other possible alternatives that hopefully aren't too complicated:

        ALT5 ... that Bohumil Herlischka served as the stage director of the Prague National Theatre from 1951 to 1957?
        ALT6 ... that Bohumil Herlischka's staging of Weber's opera Der Freischütz (The Marksman) was met with strong opposition as he did not stage its traditional Happy Ending?
        ALT7 ... that Bohumil Herlischka's 1964 staging of Der ferne Klang (The Distant Sound) was the first performance of a Franz Schreker opera since the banning of Schreker's music by the Nazis in 1933?

        Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

        Late to this feast, - when I show playlist on my user talk, I'm out singing, and can't reply. We do have a massive misunderstanding. I didn't say find a hook, I objected to striking one, not being the reviewer, just because it's not fascinating for you. I fight less when I invested less time in an article, but this one was really hard for me to expand enough. Of all the hooks, take ALT1. I am still convinced that the original (or ALT2) is a better summary of this specific person's cultural background and enormous feat. I don't remember any cycle of six operas, and then unknown ones that are much harder to teach the performers! - All the Wiedertäufer hooks miss world premiere, and I'm not sure our average reader would deduce that from "commissioned". Nice hooks for the opera, but not for him. Perhaps I'll write it some day. Talking about Prague while his mature career was NOT there seems wrong to me. I saw a performance of Der Freischütz last year, also without happy ending. ALT7 is good, but again, says more about Schreker's work and fate than Herlischka, other than that he has courage. Yes, go for ALT7a (formatted), it mentions Nazi, that's always good for click numbers. I hope some sarcasm can be noticed.
        ALT7a ... that Bohumil Herlischka's 1964 staging of Der ferne Klang was the first performance of a Schreker opera since the banning of his music by the Nazis? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg As I proposed several hooks, this will need a review by a new reviewer. @Serial Number 54129: Can you do so? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          I've unstruck ALT0. I completely disagree with any notion that this is "uninteresting to a broad audience". Janacek is one of the greatest composers of the 20th century, but his operas are far less known than his string quartets. The fact is that Herlischka introduced Janacek's operas to Western european audience, setting the roots for this music to be performed with higher frequency there. Zingarese talk · contribs 22:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
        The issue here though is not about Janáček, but the hook fact about staging of the six operas, and the hook doesn't even imply anything about the "introducing to Western audiences" part. And in all honestly, there are other facts mentioned in the article that are more intriguing to broad audiences (unlike ALT0 which in all honesty only really appeals to classical music fans). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

        It's been over a month since the last comment here. I've gone ahead and restruck ALT0 as I don't believe that Zingarese's comments sufficiently addressed the concerns I had about the hook (specifically, when they said that Herlischka helped raised Janacek's profile in Western circles, while the hook itself does not say that and is frankly too complicated as I don't think the part about the cycle is necessary). As a compromise, I am listing below a simplified version and making a request at WT:DYK for a new reviewer (I personally find both ALT0 and the ALT0a I'm proposing below as rather bland, but I'll let the new reviewer decide). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

        ALT0a... that Bohumil Herlischka staged six operas by Leoš Janáček at the Deutsche Oper am Rhein?
        Better than nothing, but you are missing the most unusual aspect, that they were also played in one season. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
        I'm not sure how to accommodate that request in the context of ALT0a, and honestly I don't think that would appeal to a broad audience. Reading through this again, ALT5, ALT6, and ATL7a might be our best options here. Would anyone new be willing to take a look at this? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        Have it your way. (I think the original hook did just that.) --

        George Ali Murad Khan

        George Ali Murad Khan seated on throne
        George Ali Murad Khan seated on throne

        Created by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 14:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC).

        • Nice decent article but we need a better source for the claim. Will indulge in some copy-editing. WBGconverse 12:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Expanded the article by 2X. Struck out hook; for being inaccurate. Once again, I cannot over-emphasize the need to abide by WP:HISTRS.To quote a reliable source:-In contrast, by 1951 India – all princely states included – was participating in the first nationwide general elections on the principles of ‘one person, one vote’ and representative government, while in Pakistan only Khairpur and Bahawalpur even achieved universal adult franchise, and no state realised full responsible government. The issue of pin-pointing the state that first achieved universal-suffrage -- Bahawalpur (wherein a very similar law was passed days before Khairpur's) or Khairpur or the entire country of India (which has decided on suffrage, long back and preparations of voters list et al were in swing for years) is not easy. WBGconverse 15:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
        • @Winged Blades of Godric: The claim in the hook was cited from The Friday Times, a Pakistani newspaper. Also in this revision, you have added a fact and added citation needed to it! RRD (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
        • A Pakistani source has all the reasons to claim exaggerated stuff. Similar for Indian sources; if this was an India-based article. My source was a peer-reviewed scholarly publication and I see at-least one leading expert in the area, as a co-author.
        • As to cn template; I need to get the precise bibliographic data of the source, once I go for my next visit to National Library of India :-( The soft-copy that I can access through my subscriptions has a lack of it. WBGconverse 13:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
        I also have to note that the article currently has a citation needed tag. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
        @Narutolovehinata5: I have removed the unsourced statement.
        • ALT1:... that George Ali Murad Khan, the erstwhile ruler of Khairpur state of Pakistan initially wanted to join India? RRD (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
          ALT1 is probably a better option, but I will leave the rest to the original reviewer Winged Blades of Godric. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
          I have removed my addition, sourcing ain't strong. The hook is thus, ineligible. WBGconverse 09:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed; at this point, Winged Blades of Godric has contributed too much to the article to be eligible to review here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

        Articles created/expanded on April 13

        Birjis Qadr

        Birjis Qadr
        Birjis Qadr
        • ... that Nawab Birjis Qadr became a poet during his exile in Nepal?

        5x expanded by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 16:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC).

        • Looks good. Source-checks pending. WBGconverse 12:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg A new reviewer is needed as the original reviewer has been unable to return in spite of a talk page message. If no one else picks this up in a week, I'll do it myself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is an expansion and is new enough and long enough. Winged Blades of Godric seems to have checked the referencing of the article. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol possible vote.svg Returned from prep per discussion at WT:DYK#Prep 5 image hook. The article needs copy-editing and clarification, and a new hook is needed with more context and hook interest. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
        • This nomination also appears to have been made 8 days after expansion began. The reviewer should decide if it merits IAR. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
        Just adding my two cents here. As the nomination was only a day late, I don't see any harm in allowing it per WP:IAR. Secondly, here are two possible alternative hooks: the first is basically the original hook with added context, the second adds the reason for his exile:
        ALT1 ... that Birjis Qadr (pictured), who was Nawab (leader) of Awadh state in northern India, became a poet after going into exile in Nepal?
        ALT2 ... that Birjis Qadr (pictured), who was Nawab (leader) of Awadh state in northern India, went into exile in Nepal after the Capture of Lucknow in 1857?
        Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
        • It strikes me that one very interesting fact is that he went into exile when he was twelve years old. Adding that fact to both of the above hooks to get ALT3 and ALT4:
        • ALT3 ... that Birjis Qadr (pictured), who was Nawab (leader) of Awadh state in northern India, became a poet after going into exile in Nepal when he was 12?
        • ALT4 ... that Birjis Qadr (pictured), who was Nawab (leader) of Awadh state in northern India, went into exile in Nepal after the Capture of Lucknow in 1857 when he was 12? —BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
        The problem with ALT3 is that it's a bit of a run-on sentence, the hook makes it vague if he was 12 when he went into exile or when he became a poet. ALT4 kind of solves the issue, but in any case, perhaps a reword is in order. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

        Articles created/expanded on April 14

        Opon Ifá

        • ... the Ifá divination system employs Opon Ifá to solve quotidian problems via communicating with spirits?

        5x expanded by Sangbin1999 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC).

        • Symbol delete vote.svg Despite some expansion, this is still quite a way short of a 5x expansion. See Wikipedia:Did you know for eligibility criteria. Spokoyni (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Comment: to clarify, the article was 1534 prose characters prior to expansion, and is 4224 prose characters currently. It would need to expand further to meet the 5x expansion requirement to 7670 prose characters, or by more additional characters than have already been added (2690 have been added; another 3446 would be needed). If Sangbin1999 thinks there's enough encyclopedic material to add to reach 7670 prose characters, they're welcome to expand it further and let us know they'll be doing so over the next little while; otherwise, the nomination will have to be closed. Thanks. (I have formatted the hook so it meets DYK requirements.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that the article has reached 9207 prose characters, and is a 6x expansion, more than is needed for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Symbol possible vote.svg Article is certainly long enough and of good quality/meeting all policies/well sourced. The time factor I'll leave to promotors to decide on - in future it will aid reviews if your nomination is made with the necessary expansion nearly or already completed, as this has taken several weeks to get to DYK length and technically the "new" aspect requires it to take no more than seven days. Is there any reason why "quotidian problems" is used instead of the more accessible "daily problems"? The article does not use "quotidian" at any point. And while the article discusses how the divination process works, there is no mention of what sort of problems, daily or otherwise, it is intended to help with. This would need to be explicitly sourced and added to the article. Spokoyni (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The article creator doesn't seem to have edited much, or to be really engaged with this review. It's certainly DYK-worthy though, and its the hook that is the sticking point. I've added a few more options below that are sourced in the article, if @Sangbin1999: would like to comment, or another reviewer can confirm. BTW, from what I read in the article and the notes from their tutor, the plural of Opon Ifá is the same as the singular. Spokoyni (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
        • ALT1 ... that Opon Ifá are used in the Ifá divination system of Yoruba tradition?
        • ALT2 ... that the design of

          LGBT history in Poland

          • ... that despite its long history, Polish LGBT people started organizing only in the 80s?

          Created by KamillaŚ (talk). Self-nominated at 20:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC).

          • Symbol possible vote.svg I would love to get this through, but the article is lacking citations for a lot of text, and needs a copyedit. I'll wait for a response and see if there are significant updates. Kingsif (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
            • @Kingsif: I added the citations in place of all "citation neededs" and clarified few parts. but I would love to see someone help me with writing style, copyedit etc, as its not my strongest side in english. KamillaŚ (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

          I made some corrections and added something. And maybe we should consider a more eye-catching DYK question - e.g. ... that throughout its history homosexuality has never been criminalized by the Polish law? (However, we would have to make sure whether it's really true.). BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

          Symbol possible vote.svg It looks mostly OK, but there are some serious concerns in the article. Firstly, it seems to contradict itself in the lead by saying that there have never been any Polish laws that persecute LGBT people, and then also says homosexuality was decriminalized in 1932 so this requires some clarification. Secondly, there are some POV issues. The statement in the lead that "Homophobia has been a common public attitude in Poland, thanks to the influence of Catholic Church in Polish public life, and the widespread conservatism of Polish society." is a clear POV indictment of the Catholic Church and perpetuates the misconception that the Church's opposition to homosexuality is based in homophobia (I am not saying there are no homophobic Catholics, but it is factually false to claim this is the reason the Catholic Church as an institution has historically opposed LGBT rights). Similarly, in the Second Polish Republic section, the article attributes the Catholic cultural taboo on homosexuality to ignorance. I do not see how that cannot be construed as a POV violation. (Keep in mind WP:OUTRAGE: Even perspectives you find morally offensive must be accurately portrayed). As another point, it should be mentioned in the main text that there is significant controversy over the sexual/asexual nature of adelphopoiesis, relegating that mention to a footnote makes this paragraph, in its context, seem to imply that these relationships were definitively sexual. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

          Articles created/expanded on April 22

          Matthew H. Todd, Alice Motion

          Professor Matt Todd
          Professor Matt Todd
          • Comment: (1) I've offered ALTs to try for an informative and clear under-200 character wording. I think it is desirable to name the school involved, and also Turing if possible. Alternatives welcome.
            (2) Pkin8541 is new to DYK and fairly new to WP.
            (3) Todd article written in Draft space and moved to article space by Hughesdarren on 22 April 2019 – added to DYK nomination page for 22 April
            (4) Motion article written in Draft space and moved to article space by Pkin8541 on 24 April 2019
            (5) I (EdChem) will need to provide two QPQ reviews.

          Created/expanded by Pkin8541 (talk). Nominated by EdChem (talk) at 02:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC).

          I think it's important to quickly mention that it was price-hiked - some drugs are more expensive because there's a smaller number of people needing it, for example.

          Pkin8541 (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

          Axem Titanium (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

          QPQ: Red XN - Not yet? @EdChem:
          Overall: Symbol question.svg Articles look good. I've suggested ALT6 below. Thoughts? @Pkin8541: Axem Titanium (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

          @Axem Titanium: I like it with a minor change to "synthesised it for less than 0.1%" Pkin8541 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

          Ok with me for ALT7. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

          @EdChem: everything else besides the QPQ are good to go. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

          Articles created/expanded on April 23

          Mambo (Vodou)

          • ... that mambos must undergo a multistep initiation process in order for them to enter priesthood and establish their communication with the Vodou spirits? Brown, Karen McCarthy (2001). Mama Lola: A Vodou Priestess in Brooklyn. The University Press Group Ltd. ISBN 9780520224759.

          Created/expanded by Thatgirljessie (talk). Nominated by Enwebb (talk) at 18:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC).

          • Just a comment and not a review, but perhaps the hook could be reworded somewhat, as the wording does not make it immediately clear that "mambos" are female vodou priests (i.e. that fact is at the end rather than at the start). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Symbol possible vote.svg This nomination falls short of the 5x expansion requirement according to DYKcheck, going from 978 to 3634 prose characters, when it would need to be 4890 prose characters, so currently less than a 4x expansion. In addition, the expansion started back on April 2 and the article should have been nominated within seven days, so it's two weeks late. Under those circumstances, it seems unlikely that the article will qualify for DYK, although as a first-time nominator—this is part of course work for a class at Bowdoin College—it might be possible for the an exception to be made for the nomination delay. The further expansion would be necessary for this to be considered. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
          • @BlueMoonset: The course ended back on May 7 and the nominator hasn't edited since then, so I'm unsure if they will be able to return to this discussion (and in fact they appeared to never have responded). It's your call if this nomination can still continue, but personally, given the circumstances, I'm leaning towards marking this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed now that article is now well over 8x expanded (8533 prose characters) to determine whether it can proceed after having been nominated two weeks late. (We have recently given a first-time nominee a longer grace period than that.) According to the article talk page, the class does not end until May 16, so if there are issues with the nomination, there is still a short window where a response from the author might be possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
          • The class has long ended and the article author is now inactive. This is not a review, but a comment: right now there's a copyedit template edit in the article which was added this month. This needs to be resolved first before this can be promoted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

          Symbol possible vote.svg If no editor has agreed to adopt this nomination or do a copyedit by June 24, this nomination will be marked for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

          Articles created/expanded on April 24

          Articles created/expanded on April 25

          Madrasa and tomb of Alauddin Khilji

          Madrasa of Alauddin Khilji
          Madrasa of Alauddin Khilji

          Created by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 10:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC).

          • Doing...-Nizil (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
          @Nizil Shah: I have moved the page, gave assessments and done the QPQ. RRD (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
          @Royroydeb: New, long enough, cited, neutral, no copyvio, image free licensed and would look ok at 100x100 px, QPQ done. The hook is not interesting enough and bit long. Can you propose another one or reword it?-Nizil (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
          @Nizil Shah:
          @Royroydeb: It is still long and bit confusing. I tweak it a little to make it more hooky. How is it? -Nizil (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
          @Nizil Shah: The fact that it is tomb of Alauddin Khalji and is the first such tomb to be built in a school in India is missing. RRD (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
          @Royroydeb:, its OK to not have king's name and first built in the hook. The hook should sound interesting and should lead reader to the article. So do you find ALTa more interesting and easy to understand?-Nizil (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
          @Royroydeb:. -Nizil (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
          @Nizil Shah: I would still push for tomb of Alauddin Khalji instead oftomb of the king. RRD (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
          @Royroydeb: Is it OK?-Nizil (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

          Articles created/expanded on April 26


          • ALT0... that menstrual periods can cause bleeding into the chest? Source: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological disorder, affecting 10-15% of women of reproductive age. It is defined by extrauterine growth of endometrial tissue, including endometrial glands and stroma. The ectopic tissue is typically located in the peritoneal cavity, most often in the pelvis, but endometriosis has been reported in nearly all body compartments. Although rarely involved, the thoracic cavity is the most frequent extra-abdominopelvic site of endometriosis. Thoracic endometriosis syndrome (TES) is the term used to refer to the various clinical and radiological manifestations resulting from the presence and cyclical changes of functional endometrial tissue in a thoracic structure (visceral or parietal pleura, lung parenchyma, airways, or diaphragm). Clinical manifestations vary during the menstrual cycle and are more likely to occur during menses, because of the hormonal responsiveness of ectopic endometrial tissue. TES includes five well-recognized clinical entities grouped into two forms, namely the pleural form with catamenial pneumothorax (CP), non-catamenial endometriosis-related pneumothorax (NCP), and catamenial haemothorax (CHt). Rousset 2014, PMID:24331768
          • ALT1... that during menstrual periods, tissue from the womb can bleed into the chest?
          • Comment: PeaBrainC was GA reviewer, Steve Mulch Civic Pro was GA nominator

          Improved to Good Article status by Steve Mulch Civic (Pro) and PeaBrainC (talk). Self-nominated at 12:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC).

          • Reviewed:

            Articles created/expanded on April 30

            IM 67118

            • Comment: It would be nice to include a photograph of the tablet, but I have not been able to find any with an appropriate license.

            Created by Will Orrick (talk). Self-nominated at 22:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC).

            • Symbol question.svg @Will Orrick: This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. No QPQ is needed. Please could you incorporate a date for Pythagoras' birth (with an inline citation) into the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

            Bladimir Lugo

            • Comment: New article created on 26 April. This person is controversial during the Crisis in Venezuela.

            Created by Cyfraw (talk) and Jamez42 (talk). Nominated by Cyfraw (talk) at 07:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC).

            • Hi

              Louisville Sinking Fund Building

              • Comment: Saturday May 4 is the Kentucky Derby in Louisville KY, which usually gets an in the news spot that day. May be of related interest to this article.

              Created by Charles Edward (talk). Self-nominated at 15:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC).

              • Le Groupement (cycling team)

                • ... that the Le Groupement cycling team folded in mid-1995 amidst accusations that their sponsoring company ran a pyramid scheme? Source: "Other controversy surrounded the team because of their sponsors. The group behind the main sponsor was the European Association of Marketing Professionals which was said to have been nothing but a pyramid scheme." (Source)
                • Comment: Unfortunately, no image for this one...

                Created by Zwerg Nase (talk). Self-nominated at 18:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC).

                Policy compliance:

                Hook eligiblity:

                • Cited: Red XN - I raised my concern about the source above, and can't see any easy replacements from a quick web search.
                • Interesting: Green tickY
                • Other problems: Red XN - I don't think it's necessary to add the date of disbanding to the hook, since it can have a nicer "punch" if shortened.

                QPQ: Red XN - As you have 8 previous DYK credits, you need to complete a QPQ.
                Overall: Symbol question.svg Interesting article, and I have taken the liberty of moving it to a title without disambiguation (as there is no conflicting use of that name). SounderBruce 04:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

                • @

                  Hallo Ü-Wagen

                  • ... that Hallo Ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van) was a weekly travelling talk radio show of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, with participation of experts, guests and listeners (pictured)? Source: [5]

                  Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 20:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC).

                  • Symbol question.svg The article was nominated within the 7-day requirement, it is adequately sourced, free of plagiarism, and AGF sourced to German sources. QPQ still required. The hook is okay but I think a more interesting fact in the article is the one about the host being called one of Germany's 100 Most Influential Women. Would it be okay for you to propose a hook based on that? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • In the above hook, "listeners" is somewhat confusing. The article refers to those on location as the "public" and those listening by radio as "listeners". Jmar67 (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
                  I've boldly moved the "(pictured)" to after the article subject, since it appears that the picture is referring to the van itself rather than the listeners. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
                  I am not happy with that, and please make your own ALT(s) instead of changing something with my signature under it. Here's yours:
                  ALT1: ... that Hallo Ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van, pictured) was a weekly travelling talk radio show of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, with participation of experts, guests and listeners?
                  Formally, I haven't seen pictured in the same brackets as a translation, also how can you follow the rule to have the brackets italic for one but not the other? Content: the van is NOT pictured (compare image in the source), the program is, presenter talking to public or guests, - ok, I therefore move pictured:
                  ALT2: ... that Hallo Ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van) was a weekly travelling talk radio show of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, with participation of experts and guests at the location (pictured), and of listeners?
                  How do you call people who come to a live radio talk? - Back to the first question: We had the "influential women" thingy already, on 7 May, still on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
                  Those on location are the "live audience". How about
                  ALT3: ... that Hallo Ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van) was a weekly travelling talk radio show of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, with participation of experts, guests, the live audience (pictured), and listeners?
                  Jmar67 (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
                  Re deletion of "guests": The article refers to experts and invited guests. Seems OK to mention them. Jmar67 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
                  OK, guests back. Can you help with the nom for Pütz, arts vs. art? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • Going back to this nomination, I think there's potential with the hook fact (i.e. the part about the subject being a travelling radio show). However, I don't think ALT0 and its variants work out wording-wise. I'm not sure exactly how to reword it, but I think the best option would be to try to focus on the travelling part or even the van itself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
                    What is the objection to the wording? I could suggest
                  ALT4: ... that Hallo Ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van), a weekly travelling talk radio show of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, featured experts, guests, the live audience (pictured), and listeners?
                  Jmar67 (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
                  The thing I had with the original hook is that it didn't exactly flow well: ALT4 sounds snappier. Talk shows though tend to all have "experts, guests, live audiences, and listeners", and I think it would be a lot catchier to focus on either the travelling aspect or the van itself. I don't think radio shows that take place on the road are that common, are they? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
                  I was expecting Gerda to pick up on this. But my question now is: how valid is this nomination in the light of the similar DYK appearance here? Jmar67 (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
                  I always do it like that, avoiding double and triple hooks. She had a career beyond that show, the show lasted beyond her time, - different things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
                  Als, no objection means consent. What it needs is a reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
                  This just occurred to me:
                  ALT5: ... that Hallo Ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van), a weekly talk radio programme of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, was an audience participation (pictured) show on wheels?
                  Jmar67 (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
                  Sorry, in "participation (pictured) show", - the "show" comes as a surprise. How about this then:
                  ALT6: ... that Hallo Ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van) was a weekly radio talk show on wheels of the WDR from 1974 to 2010, with audience participation (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
                  ALT7: ... that Hallo Ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van) was a long-running weekly German radio talk show on wheels, with audience participation (pictured)?
                  The WDR ref has always irritated me. Jmar67 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
                  I won't fight, but do Main page readers know German public radio? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
                  I very much doubt it. Which doesn't mean that a hook about German public radio would be disallowed, only that additional context would be needed for international readers. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
                  Context would be established by a link to WDR. It could be piped:
                  ALT8: ... that Hallo Ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van) was a long-running weekly German radio travelling talk show, with audience participation (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
                  I don't see a need for a link in the hook. There is one in the lead sentence of the article. Jmar67 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
                  • Since this has been stuck for a while, would a simple hook work?
                  ALT9: ... that Hallo Ü-Wagen (Hello Radio Van) (pictured) was a long-running weekly German radio talk show on wheels?
                  I mean, I don't think travelling talk shows are that common in the first place. I know of a few but they're not the norm. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
                  Yes, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
                  Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thanks, probably ready for a new reviewer. Courtesy ping Jmar67. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
                  ALT9 is OK with me. Jmar67 (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

                  Operation Crossfire Hurricane

                  • ... that individuals associated with the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign were targeted by a Crossfire Hurricane? Source: Washington Post That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities New York Times Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016 [...] at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.

                  Converted from a redirect by Starship.paint (talk) and Shinealittlelight (talk). Nominated by Starship.paint (talk) at 01:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC).

                  Otherwise, this is a really bad idea as the focus is not on the late discovery of the code-name "Crossfire Hurricane", but on common knowledge about the Russia investigation (which is the common name for what was originally referred to by agents as Crossfire Hurricane). This can end up confusing people into thinking that they were two different investigations, and thus Wikipedia would be engaged in creating/furthering a fringe conspiracy theory. We shouldn't do that.
                  Create a new hook which focuses on the code-name, without getting into anything about the relation of the code-name to the investigation, as that is an unresolved discussion on the article's talk page.
                  This makes me think the article is now only two steps away from an AfD. Before it was three steps. I haven't done that yet because I'm hoping it can turn into a good article which collects into one place all the information about the Russia investigation which is spread around in different articles. If that doesn't happen, then the article has no right to exist. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
                  Might as well just have a little fun with it:
                  • ALT3: ... that the Mueller Report was born in a crossfire hurricane? (Hope it's alll ... riiiiight ... nooow) Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
                    Oh yes. Very nice. starship.paint (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
                    Yay, baby, yay! — JFG talk 21:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
                    Still, for exactitude, we should say ALT4 …that the Mueller probe was born in a crossfire hurricane? — JFG talk 21:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
                    Source: NPR Comey was leading the Justice Department's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. Mueller is now leading that investigation New York Times Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016 [...] at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane. starship.paint (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
                    Oh yes to ALT4. Sorry Daniel! starship.paint (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

                  Please post on my talk page if you review this, or need my response. Also, note: Page has been moved to Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation). starship.paint (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

                  What is Democracy?

                  • ... that The Allegory of Good and Bad Government is a discussion point in What Is Democracy?? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
                    • ALT1:... that What Is Democracy? interviews people from barbers to philosophers? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

                  Converted from a redirect by StudiesWorld (talk). Self-nominated at 20:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC).

                  • I should note that this was my first DYK nom for QPQ review. PublicWorld (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • Will review soon. – Teratix 04:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
                  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article is new enough and long enough, neutral, and cites reliable sources inline (excepting sentences previously sourced to IMDb, which will need to be replaced with better citations). No copyright problems Earwig or I could detect. No QPQ required and the hook is within 200 characters.
                  • However, the hooks aren't quite up to standard. ALT0 is not terribly interesting to a general audience, even if they know what The Allegory of Good and Bad Government is. It's an unsurprising statement of fact. ALT1 is far better but still has some problems. Firstly, the documentary features a barber (singular), not many. Secondly, it's not surprising a documentary on the definition of democracy would feature interviews with philosophers (experts, after all, at defining these broad terms), but The New Yorker mentions trauma surgeons, a poet, and refugees as subjects, all of which would be much more interesting to include in the hook. Secondly, a documentary cannot interview a person; it should read something like "In documentary X, John Doe interviews ..."
                  • This isn't strictly in the DYK criteria, but the article should have a reception section; it's a basic component of film articles. Also, there's no need to provide inline citations for the summary, as the work itself is implied to be cited. – Teratix 13:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
                  Teratix, Thanks for the feedback. The reason that I included inline citations for the summary is that I saw the film at a screening and therefore couldn't refer to it while writing the summary, so I primarily relied on sources. Should I remove the inline citations? Looking at other Reception sections, they seem to focus on box office statistics. However, I can't find those for this film. Would it be acceptable to only discuss its award nominations and media reviews? Here's a rephrasing:
                  Although I will note, that I like the barber's inclusion. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
                  I realized that I didn't address your other concern:
                  • It is fine to include a reception section discussing reviews and awards even if you can't find box office statistics. The hook still reads slightly awkwardly because "democracy" appears twice. Maybe rephrase or replace the title with "a 2019 documentary" or similar? – Teratix 12:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

                  Pamela Nadell

                  Created by Cawhee (talk). Self-nominated at 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC).

                  • Agadzagadza

                    • ... that Agadzagadza the trickster lizard is blamed as the cause of death in Bura mythology?
                      • ALT1:... that Agadzagadza is a mythological trickster from Uganda who is responsible for bringing death to humankind?
                        • ALT2:... that Agadzagadza is a mythological trickster from Nigeria who is responsible for bringing death to humankind?
                          • ALT3:... that Agadzagadza the trickster lizard is blamed as the cause of death in Nigerian mythology?
                    • Reviewed: I think I'm exempt from review, but please let me know if this isn't the case!

                    Created by You've got Koalatee (talk). Nominated by Gardneca (talk) at 06:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC).


                    Hook eligiblity:

                    • Cited: Red XN - ALT1 fails as the article doesn't seem to mention Uganda. An issue with the primary hook is the reference to the "Bura". This isn't linked in the hook or article. Possible links include Bura people (which redirects to Kilba people) or Bura language (aka Bura/Pabir). I reckon we need to clarify this and the exact source which is supporting it.
                    This is my fault, I meant Nigeria not Uganda! Whoops. Linking to Bura people should work. Gardneca (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
                    • Interesting: Green tickY
                    QPQ: None required.

                    Overall: Symbol question.svg It's not clear to me whether the word Agadzagadza is the Bura/Pabir name for a lizard or whether it's the proper name of this particular trickster. I suppose it's a bit of both like Coyote.

                    I think you're right Gardneca (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
                    • Shalor (Wiki Ed) Andrew Davidson I'd like to continue with this but since I'm new to the process I'm not sure what the next step should be. I responded to the issues and made changes, so please advise as to how to proceed. Thanks! Gardneca (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
                    • I'll take another look. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

                    Antonia Bolingbroke-Kent

                    Antonia Bolingbroke-Kent
                    Antonia Bolingbroke-Kent
                    • ... that Antonia Bolingbroke-Kent (pictured) set a Guinness World Record with "Ting Tong"? Source: Not very many months later the pair of us were thundering across China’s Gobi desert in Ting Tong, our shockingly pink three-wheeled steed, heading in the general direction of England. In 98 days of tukking we covered 12,783 miles, two continents and 12 countries and survived an earthquake, several landslides and the odd lascivious Russian. We also set the Guinness World Record for the Longest Ever Journey by Auto-Rickshaw Source

                    Created by Roxedl (talk). Self-nominated at 09:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC).

                    • Symbol possible vote.svg There's a few issues here that would need to be addressed. The prose needs at least an extra 350 characters to make this long enough for DYK. One paragraph is mostly uncited, and that includes the mention of "Ting Tong" and the World Record. Most of the article is sourced to the subject's blog or book. I'm sure that what she writes is true, but claims like these need some reliable third-party sourcing, ideally perhaps something official from Guinness itself. The image would probably benefit from cropping but is perhaps misleading with the hook as it suggests the vehicle is Ting Tong, which it isn't. Spokoyni (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
                    In the meantime I did some additions and a ref for the record. Unfortunately I did not find any ref from Guinness, and the record must have been broken again shortly afterwardsby the actual record holder, a bit strange, I agree. Roxedl (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
                    It wouldn't necessarily need to be from Guinness, but a statement like that really needs to be supported by a third party RS. Similarly the article is still too small, and large parts are unsourced, including the hook fact. And the article still leans too heavily on the subject's own blog and books to satisfy policies (I notice there has also been an issue with an COI editor). This is still some way from being acceptable for DYK - do you think you will be able to bring it in line? Spokoyni (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
                    I added some more points. I assume RS means also BBC. Indeed I already doubted the Guinness world record, as – at least – another, the actual world record must have come in shortly afterwards and there are no more RS stating this (if not quite obviously from the lemma itself, the sum raised for Mind also varies from 37.000 GBP – BBC – to 60.000 GBP – RGS). The Guinness website in the past (in the Wayback Machine) does not help either. I picked some points from the COI editor, and there the mention "recipient of the 2019 Neville Shulman Challenge Award" puzzled me again, as this might be awarded in November …). The article has actually 5435 bytes, counting only the words in my local editor it is 2600 (sorry, I was absolutely unaware of this big difference) – the limit is 3500, right? Roxedl (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
                    Besides the length problem, is there the possibility to change the DYK intro? Sorry, I am new to DYK, sorry for making a bit cumbersome the whole process. Roxedl (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

                    Articles created/expanded on May 5

                    Saadat Ali Khan I

                    Saadat Ali Khan I
                    Saadat Ali Khan I
                    • ... that Saadat Ali Khan I (pictured) ended the administrative authority of the landlords over their lands in Awadh, India?
                    • Reviewed: soon

                    5x expanded by Royroydeb (talk). Self-nominated at 16:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC).

                    • Symbol question.svg The hook sounds rather vague and doesn't say much. It doesn't catch attention, and I don't think it appeals to anyone but history buffs. Can something more exciting be proposed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


                    • ... that several sultans in Morocco and the Ottoman Empire were deposed by a fatwa? Source: "...several Ottoman and Moroccan sultans were deposed by fatwas" ("Fatwa", in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, 2013, p. 174)
                      • ALT1:... that according to some scholars Ayatollah Khomeini's proclamation condemning Salman Rushdie to death was not a fatwa? Source: "...Ayatollah Khomeini (1902–89) issued a statement calling for the execution of author Salman Rushdie for insulting Islam in his novel The Satanic Verses. Although not strictly a fatwa, this death sentence was quickly treated as such" ("Fatwa", in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, 2013, p. 174); "There are some views that deny that this actually was a fatwa, as it did not follow the classical criteria of form or function for a fatwa." (Vikør, Knut S. (2005). Between God and the Sultan: A History of Islamic Law. Oxford University Press, p. 142)
                    • Reviewed: Exempt from QPQ - 1 DYK credit so far.

                    Improved to Good Article status by Eperoton (talk). Self-nominated at 23:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC).

                    Article is well sourced, and hooks are reasonably interesting. They do suggest that the reader knows what a fatwa is, before reading the article, however. QPQ not required. Hooks are cited. No copyvio. See below for more comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

                    • Definitely newly promoted enough and long enough. An Earwig check is a liiiiitle iffy. Specifically, "allowed a female convert to Islam to remain married to her non-Muslim husband, based in part on the existence of European laws and customs which guarantee women the freedom of religion" If the source is somehow freely licensed or public domain, then fine enough. Otherwise that's stretching the limits of fair use a bit too far. Similarly, (though Earwig doesn't pick this bit up) the opening sentence is nearly verbatim from the Princeton Encyclopedia source. The hook, is exactly verbatim from the Princeton Encyclopedia source. So these really need to be quoted or they need to be reworded. Fair use gives us leeway with attributed quotes, but not with unatributed ones. Additional manual spot checks only picked up one additional issue. A large portion of this was either copied to Fatwa from Mufti or visa versa. But I don't see on either article, either in edit summaries or on the talk page where the original is attributed. This is required by the CCBYSA license, and so it needs to be sorted out which is the original and which is the copy, so we can make sure we're in compliance with WP:COPYWITHIN.
                    User:Lee Vilenski it looks like we had an edit conflict, but you probably want to revisit your approval given the above. GMGtalk 14:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

                    ───────────────────────── @GreenMeansGo: thanks for the closer review.

                    • I have rephrased the passages underlined above.
                    • For the definition, it's important to reflect the definitions found in the sources, which are themselves similar to each other. I think this one falls under: "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing."
                    • I was reluctant to paraphrase those few words in the hook because I feared introducing OR. For example, one could replace "deposed" by "forced to abdicate", but it doesn't quite mean the same thing. I feel this is also in the area of "limited number of ways to say the same thing". P.S. On closer inspection, how about this paraphrase of the hook?
                    • I contributed all the text in both Fatwa and Mufti, so my edits are the appropriate attribution.

                    Let me know if you still have concerns. Eperoton (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

                    @Lee Vilenski: Do you think we should gloss fatwa as "(nonbinding legal opinion)" or "(nonbinding legal opinion on a point of Islamic law)" in the hooks? Eperoton (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

                    Wouldn't an opinion by definition not be legally binding? I think fatwa (legal opinion) makes sense, but It's not really something I understand entirely. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
                    @Lee Vilenski: Binding legal opinions do exist in some legal systems, but we can use the shorter gloss in the hook for brevity. Eperoton (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
                    • As far as COPYWITHIN, unless you are positive that there were no other contributors to the duplicated content, i.e., if they were both added at the same time, then we would still need attribution. But that's really too easy, just use a WP:DUMMYEDIT on whatever article was last and say "text from this article copied from that article".
                    Just to be safe, I'll see if we can't get a second opinion on whether the hook runs into close paraphrasing issues. Maybe I'm over thinking it. Never hurts to ask. GMGtalk 12:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
                    @GreenMeansGo: Thanks, second opinion on the hook would be good. Regarding attribution, the text of both articles either came out of my sandbox or was added by me to both articles at about the same time. I do include attributions in edit summaries when I copy text with other contributors. Eperoton (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

                    No comment on the close paraphrasing issue, but terms like "fatwa" do not need to be defined in hooks, the hook is only there to tweak interest in a topic not to define terms, if we did the latter DYK would end up looking like a dictionary extract. People who don't know what a "fatwa" is and would like to know more get to click on the link, that's the whole point. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC).

                    • I agree that there is some paraphrasing that is too close to the sources. Compare for example "A mufti's understanding of the query commonly depended on their grasp of local customs and colloquial expressions" with "Such comprehension frequently depended on the muftī  's grasp of both local custom and colloquial expression". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
                    Can you elaborate your concern, Nikkimaria? I can't quite connect it to WP:CLOP. Nothing in this sentence strikes me as a "creative expression", and as I far as I can tell, there's a limited number of ways of expressing this particular assertion without changing the meaning or using unnatural language. This is a general issue that's important for articles on contentious topics, where I tend to edit, so I want to clarify for the future. I normally try to rephrase and rearrange content as much as the subject permits, and alternate statements drawing on different sources, but no so much as to introduce OR. CLOP, and particularly WP:LIMITED, seems to be formulated in a reasonably flexible way that permits this approach. Eperoton (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
                    P.S. So, for example, I now rewrote this as "A mufti's understanding of the query commonly depended on their familiarity with local customs and colloquialisms", which would minimize Earwig-style issues. Does that address your concern, or do you consider any statement that conveys the meaning of a statement from the source with a similar syntactic structure to be a CLOP violation, regardless of whether it can be naturally expressed otherwise? Eperoton (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
                    NOCREATIVE applies to things like "X was born on 1 January 1900", when there truly is no originality in the phrasing; that's not the case with the example I've cited. If you truly cannot find an adequate way to represent such a phrase, you can always quote it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
                    Ok, so did the rephrased version address this particular concern?

                    Articles created/expanded on May 8


                    The suit of Spades in Bête follows the unusual ranking used in Écarté
                    The suit of Spades in Bête follows the unusual ranking used in Écarté
                    • ... that the historical French pastime of la Bête, originally called l'Homme, was the first card game to use the concept of bidding?
                      Source: "The adoption of bidding into Triomphe occurred during the 17th century to produce a game called at first l'Homme ("Man") and subsequently la Bête (German Labet, Dutch LaBate, English Beast). The former title shows its origin to lie with the 16th-century Spanish game of Hombre (English and French Ombre)." ("Five-Trick Trump Games" at
                      • ALT1:... that the historical French card game of la Bête has its origins in 16th-century Spanish Ombre and was created by introducing the concept of bidding into Triomphe?
                        Source: as above

                    Created by Bermicourt (talk). Self-nominated at 06:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC).

                    • Comment. I've rewritten the hook to align better with Parlett's actual description. Bermicourt (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
                    • Symbol question.svg This article is new enough and long enough, the article is neutral and the image is properly licensed. However, the hook states that the game has its origin in Ombre while the article only states that it may have done so. Another problem is that the sentence "The adoption of bidding into Triomphe occurred during the 17th century to produce a game called at first l'Homme ("Man") and subsequently la Bête (German Labet, Dutch LaBate, English Beast)." appears to be identical to a sentence in this source. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
                    • Issues addressed. I've reworded that section to better reflect the sources, but also rewritten the sentence mentioned and cited it anyway. Bermicourt (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

                    Articles created/expanded on May 9

                    Articles created/expanded on May 11

                    Peruna (patent medicine)

                    Created/expanded by Eddie891 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC).

      Original: Original: